Alan Wolfe asserts there's no distinction between classical and modern liberal. In fact, to Wolfe, there's no such thing as a modern liberal. Read it here in The New Republic.
Liberalism was once synonymous with imperialism and still has nationalist impulses. Do liberals of today accept imperialism? I would think not. Liberalism has evolved since the "good old days." It has revised its intentions and thinking. It may share some simalarities with classical liberalism but is it enough to claim there's no distinction? Is Wolfe saying all liberalism is cut from the same cloth? Conversely, on the conservative side, is there such a thing as a neo or paleo-con? I realize neo-cons are disaffected liberals.
The criss-crossing and cross-over between classical liberalism, its modern version, conservatism and its offshoots, libertarianism and socialism is dizzying. No wonder people pragmatically claim to be a mixture of each. Though I'm not sure if that's even possible. I think most people have no clue or have no interest in trying to define on what part of the political scale they exist.
Classical liberalism claimed government invovlement was fine as long as it benefited the entire society - sort of like Bentham's utilitarian principle. But don't "modern" liberals use government as a means to an end?
In the end, I don't know who claims to be a classical liberal anymore. Libertarians claim lineage. But they advocate no government interventionism and I'm not sure liberals of the Enlightenment were as against it.
Or maybe modernity is such that political/philosophical labels (rigid definitions of them anyway) are as futile as trying to guess what the next lottery numbers will be?
I like your lottery number guessing image. When thinking about it labels have become a bit irrelevant. The content is more important than the container. Look at our current pols. Under a liberal label, Charest is a soft conservative while Harper tries to sound liberal but is a deeply conservative under duress to act as a liberal. As we have discussed on relativism, balance is of the essence.
ReplyDeleteLiberalism and conservatism is different in both Canada and the U.S. and still different in Europe - thought there are similarities.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what Charest is. He's just a political opportunist. He's no leader. Harper should cut the game and be who he is.
Balance may be key but it would be boring!
I don't know if a leader could ever be truly centrist.
Truly centrist? No! But sooner or later any government moves toward the center when a showdown looms.
ReplyDelete